In that web page are quotes from her to the effect that she would rather deal with Marxists, she calls them plagiarists, she says they lack philosophy. She calls them “anarchists”.

What’s really behind all that is that she thinks they should all swallow everything she says whole and not question it. Her big beef is that there is too much “morality” in libertarianism, and denounces that there are too many Christians without calling them by name (“religionists”). Maybe she was thinking of Jews too.

In fact, she apparently thought you had to choose between capitalism and socialism, and by “capitalism” she apparently did not mean the libertarian ideal of a truly free market.

Some of the criticisms of her by socialistic believers may even be true, but such a philosophy leaves them clueless about why, without understanding it, and of course they are dead wrong where it matters.

By “socialistic thinkers” I also mean those called “liberals” in the West today, and “conservatives” in the fascist and socialist countries. It would make an interesting etymological study to unwind this historically recent Orwellian flipping of the meaning of a word to its opposite, for “liberal” used to mean one who favored the free market.

In one of the referenced quotes she compared libertarians to anarchists, and seemed to bemoan that there were all kinds of different personal philosophies therein, and even where they had agreement with her ideas she called them “plagiarists”.

As if she were the first person to advocate capitalism, and denounce socialism, I guess.

This all lines up with two things I’ve come across in my experience.

One is, that the monologue by her John Galt hero in Atlas Shrugged against God was a complete plagiarism itself, taken from Satanist doctrines whole and entire. That by itself is a corroboration of the testimony from one Illuminati defector by the name of John Todd, who said the novel Atlas Shrugged was meant as a blueprint for their takeover of the world and their establishment of the global dictatorship of their “Supreme Lord”. (He reportedly died when he and his wife “fell” out of a helicopter to their deaths).

Because of Ron Paul‘s position (and practice) on federalism, many “pro-choice” advocates support him. This apparently includes members of the family of the owners of a chain of abortion clinics who have to also be well aware that the biggest names in the “pro-choice” business have condemned him for his pro-life voting record.

The thing about Ron Paul’s real-world applied libertarianism is that it has succeeded in just what Ayn Rand apparently didn’t like. It unites people of all philosophies against a common enemy: government control by the gang with the biggest guns or biggest numbers or the biggest tricks.

The common thread is the natural God-given right to exercise your natural God-given rights and suffer the consequences thereunto. It’s may seem more comfortable morally to let somebody else tell you what’s “just”, what “social justice” means, but it is an abdication also of the responsibility for it, and by doing so you violate all the victims that are forced into the same mold.